quote:California’s Department of Financial Institutions decided to issue a cease and desist warning to conference organizer Bitcoin Foundation for allegedly engaging in the business of money transmission without a license or proper authorization.

If found to be in violation of California Financial Code, penalties can be severe ranging from $1,000 to $2,500 per violation per day plus criminal prosecution which could result in fines and/or imprisonment. Additionally, it is a felony violation of federal law to engage in the business of money transmission without the appropriate state license or failure to register with the U.S. Treasury Department. Convictions under the federal statute are punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

quote:The Bitcoin Foundation is a nonprofit corporation registered in Washington, D.C. with mailing address in Seattle, WA. As a nonprofit, its mission is to standardize and promote the open source Bitcoin protocol and it receives generous support from individuals and corporations to advance those objectives. The foundation also boasts significant international membership.

One activity that the foundation does not engage in is the owning, controlling, or conducting of money transmission business. Furthermore, that activity would also be against the original charter of the foundation.

quote:there is immense value in the ability to safely, securely, and instantly send money directly to anyone, anywhere without going through a third party, without paying high fees, and with the ability to do it anonymously.

re: And So It Begins: Bitcoins seized by DEAPosted by gizmoflak on 6/24/13 at 8:17 pm to LSURussian

Doesn't look like he ever said bitcoins are intrinsically anonymous. All Wiki said or implied was that bitcoinistas have the ability to remain anonymous if certain measures are taken to protect their identities.

re: And So It Begins: Bitcoins seized by DEAPosted by LSURussian on 6/24/13 at 8:27 pm to gizmoflak

quote:Doesn't look like he ever said bitcoins are intrinsically anonymous

quote:From the second thread I ever started about bitcoin back in October of 2012, I have been referring to it as "mostly anonymous" or "pseudonymous." Please forgive me for the first thread I started on it where I said it was anonymous.

re: And So It Begins: Bitcoins seized by DEAPosted by WikiTiger on 6/24/13 at 8:30 pm to gizmoflak

gizmo, you forget that lsurussian is so stupid that he takes everything 100% literally. when debating with him you have to spell everything out like he's 5 years old. that's why I no longer respond to him. I'm glad intelligent people like yourself can read my quotes that he posted and understand what was actually said

Have you written numerous times within the last 6 months that a bitcoin user can remain anonymous if he uses bitcoins?

Yes or no?

As Wiki's proxy, I'll take a stab at an answer:

Doesn't look like he ever said bitcoins are intrinsically anonymous (ok, he said it once, in his very first bitcoin thread ... he gets a mulligan). All Wiki has said or implied is that bitcoinistas have the ability to remain anonymous IF certain measures are taken to protect their identities.

I'll just jump in to say that taking Wiki at his word he never claimed (or intended to claim) that bitcoin had the virtue of anonymity, that leaves a very major question.

What's the appeal? It can be transferred electronically to any point on the globe just like the dollar, it can be tracked just like the dollar and it obviously isn't safe from any governmental interference just like the dollar. Plus, not everywhere accepts it as a form of payment, which is very markedly unlike the dollar.

I can certainly see the prospective appeal of a bitcoin future in a world without borders sort of way but nobody has really laid out a practical framework how we get to there from here, beyond a nebulous confidence that "eventually bitcoin or somebody else will figure it out".